What if a volunteer organized the submissions and came up with a XOOM.COM web page
for the entries and voting, then the pov team could review it and see if they
thought people would be interested in buying CD's?

Bob Hughes wrote:

> "Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
> news:38B62291.1DF8C355@pacbell.net...
> |
> | "Greg M. Johnson" wrote:
> |
> | > 1)  Could the team set up a new newsgroup, and call it
> | > povray.binaries.povrayteamownscopyright ?
> | >       Then the team could sell a CD of this work!
> |
> |   The biggest question is if there would be adequate interest in such
> | a CD. Chris Cason already spends considerable time and effort organizing
> | the IRTC CD-ROM plus incurs the initial manufacturing costs before
> | distribution. If he spends all of the time necessary to put a CD like
> | this together he will need to know if it will sell well or he will end
> | up with boxes full of worthless table coasters.
> |
> | Would everyone here buy one ?
>
> I probably would not.
> Only a small number of the total number of messages and attachments are relevant
> enough to me personally.  Even though there are many that would have been nice
> to have permanently archived which I didn't gather the first time I came across
> them it wouldn't be enough to justify buying, and even moreso not justify the
> creation of the CD in my case anyhow.
> That's what makes me think that on average most of the content here wouldn't be
> termed consumable enough for the masses.  That's considering the relatively
> small number of constant message posters and larger number of readers which all
> might still see only a portion of the entire content at news.povray.org as
> relevant material as well.  The major problem I think is that if there is
> something a person likes then that person more often than not probably already
> has collected up the message and/or attachment anyway and whatever else they
> might miss wouldn't amount to a whole lot perhaps.  It would be different for a
> person who has seen the newsgroups here for the first time (future visitors too)
> and would have to sift through the thousands of posts.
> I think I just long-windedly said "not me" again.
> This brings up the question of how suitable such a thing would be a year or more
> from now when the eventual content becomes much greater than currently is, and
> that would mean to be thinking of the future when dealing with the maintenance
> of these groups as to what happens to the past articles (which brought about
> this whole topic I guess).
>
> Bob

Post a reply to this message